Health benefits in 2004: four years of double-digit premium increases take their toll on coverage

This paper reports changes in employer-based insurance during the past year and since 2001. From spring 2003 to spring 2004, premiums increased 11.2 percent (compared with 13.9 percent last year). Since 2000, premiums have increased 59 percent. Since 2001, employee contributions have grown by 57 percent for single coverage and 49 percent for family coverage, and the percentage of workers covered by their own employer's health plan has fallen from 65 percent in 2001 to 61 percent in 2004. The worst of the current round of premium inflation appears to be over, but employers plan to increase employee cost sharing next year [corrected]     

Employer Health Insurance Offerings and Employee Enrollment Decisions

Objective. To determine how the characteristics of the health benefits offered by employers affect worker insurance coverage decisions.
Data Sources. The 1996–1997 and the 1998–1999 rounds of the nationally representative Community Tracking Study Household Survey.
Study Design. We use multinomial logistic regression to analyze the choice between own-employer coverage, alternative source coverage, and no coverage among employees offered health insurance by their employer. The key explanatory variables are the types of health plans offered and the net premium offered. The models include controls for personal, health plan, and job characteristics.
Principal Findings. When an employer offers only a health maintenance organization married employees are more likely to decline coverage from their employer and take-up another offer (odds ratio (OR)=1.27, p <.001), while singles are more likely to accept the coverage offered by their employer and less likely to be uninsured (OR=0.650, p <.001). Higher net premiums increase the odds of declining the coverage offered by an employer and remaining uninsured for both married (OR=1.023, p <.01) and single (OR=1.035, p <.001) workers.
Conclusions. The type of health plan coverage an employer offers affects whether its employees take-up insurance, but has a smaller effect on overall coverage rates for workers and their families because of the availability of alternative sources of coverage. Relative to offering only a non-HMO plan, employers offering only an HMO may reduce take-up among those with alternative sources of coverage, but increase take-up among those who would otherwise go uninsured. By modeling the possibility of take-up through the health insurance offers from the employer of the spouse, the decline in coverage rates from higher net premiums is less than previous estimates.     

Who Really Pays for Health Insurance? The Incidence of Employer-Provided Health Insurance with Sticky Nominal Wages

This paper addresses two seeming paradoxes in the realm of employer-provided health insurance: First, businesses consistently claim that they bear the burden of the insurance they provide for employees, despite theory and empirical evidence indicating that workers bear the full incidence. Second, benefit generosity and the percentage of premiums paid by employers have decreased in recent decades, despite the preferential tax treatment of employer-paid benefits relative to wages—trends unexplained by the standard incidence model. This paper offers a revised incidence model based on nominal wage rigidity, in an attempt to explain these paradoxes. The model predicts that when the nominal wage constraint binds, some of the burden of increasing insurance premiums will fall on firms, particularly small companies with low-wage employees. In response, firms will reduce employment, decrease benefit generosity, and require larger employee premium contributions. Using Current Population Survey data from 2000–2001, I find evidence for this kind of wage rigidity and its associated impact on the employment and premium contributions of low-wage insured workers during a period of rapid premium growth.This revised version was published online in March 2005 with corrections to the cover date     

Corporate benefit policies and health insurance costs

We tested the hypothesis that health insurance premium costs per employee are lower for employee groups where multiple health plans are offered and the employer pays a level dollar amount of the chosen premium than for employee groups where these two conditions are not met. Proposed national legislation relies on these conditions to create a competitive health care market. Data on 56 employee groups in 1981 and 66 employee groups in 1982 were collected from two surveys of large employers in Minnesota. Regression analysis of premium data from both surveys rejected the hypothesis. Indemnity plans in multiplan groups were cheaper if the employer paid a level dollar contribution versus a level percent (including 100) contribution. However, groups offered only an indemnity plan had lower premiums than groups meeting the two legislative conditions. These findings apply to both individual and family coverage premiums and are not caused by systematic differences in benefit provisions, employee demographics or factors influencing loading charges. Our findings cast doubt on attempts to achieve health care competition by legislative changes in insurance options and contribution methods.     

The effect of HMOs on premiums in employment-based health plans.

This study documents the effect of HMOs on premiums in employment-based health plans. We analyzed a survey of Minnesota employers conducted in 1986. Among 922 usable observations, 239 firms offered HMOs in addition to fee-for-service (FFS) health plans. We estimated an equation for the probability of offering an HMO, followed by equations for HMO enrollment share, and HMO and FFS premiums. The weighted average HMO and FFS premium in firms that offer HMOs was compared to the premium of FFS-only firms. We found that offering an HMO raises the average premium for family coverage health insurance by $25.14 per month and for single coverage by $3.68 per month. This effect was smaller for firms in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. HMOs may be viewed as a progressive and innovative health care benefit, but they are likely to increase firms' health insurance premiums.     

'Competition' among employers offering health insurance

Most employees contribute towards the cost of employer-sponsored insurance, despite tax laws that favor zero contributions. Contribution levels vary markedly across firms, and the average contribution (as a percentage of the premium) has increased over time. We offer a novel explanation for these facts: employers raise contribution levels to encourage their employees to obtain coverage from their spouses' employer. We develop a model to show how the employee contribution required by a given firm depends on characteristics of the firm and its work force, and find empirical support for many of the model's predictions.     

To offer or not to offer: the role of price in employers' health insurance decisions

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of changes in price on employers' decisions to offer health insurance. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A 1993 survey of 22,347 private employers in ten states was used. STUDY DESIGN: Probit regression was used to estimate the probability of offering insurance as a function of the price and employer characteristics. For employers who did not offer insurance, a price cannot be directly observed. We estimated price for nonofferors using reported quotes received by recent shoppers and a selection model to correct for differences between recent shoppers and nonshoppers. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Changes in price affect decisions to offer insurance; however, even a 40 percent reduction in premiums would lead to only a 2 to 3 percentage point increase in the share of employers offering insurance. Employers of low-wage workers are substantially less likely to offer health insurance than other employers. CONCLUSIONS: Policies to reduce the number of uninsured that focus on increasing the supply of employment-based insurance are unlikely to have the intended effect unless coupled with policies to help low-wage workers afford insurance.     

Health Insurance Premium Increases for the 5 Largest School Districts in the United States, 2004–2008

Background

Local school districts are often one of the largest, if not the largest, employers in their respective communities. Like many large employers, school districts offer health insurance to their employees. There is a lack of information about the rate of health insurance premiums in US school districts relative to other employers.

Objective

To assess the change in the costs of healthcare insurance in the 5 largest public school districts in the United States, between 2004 and 2008, as representative of large public employers in the country.

Methods

Data for this study were drawn exclusively from a survey sent to the 5 largest public school districts in the United States. The survey requested responses on 3 data elements for each benefit plan offered from 2004 through 2008; these included enrollment, employee costs, and employer costs.

Results

The premium growth for the 5 largest school districts has slowed down and is consistent with other purchasers—Kaiser/Health Research & Educational Trust and the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. The average increase in health insurance premium for the schools was 5.9% in 2008, and the average annual growth rate over the study period was 7.5%. For family coverage, these schools provide the most generous employer contribution (80.8%) compared with the employer contribution reported by other employers (73.5%) for 2008.

Conclusions

Often the largest employers in their communities, school districts demonstrate a commitment to provide choice of benefits and affordability for employees and their families. Despite constraints typical of public employers, the 5 largest school districts in the United States have decelerated in premium growth consistent with other purchasers, albeit at a slower pace.Local school districts are one of the largest employers in the United States, employing roughly 8 million employees in 2008.1 Locally, they are often one of the largest (if not the largest) employers in the communities they serve. Like many large employers, school districts offer an array of benefits to their employees, including health insurance. Employee benefits comprise 34.3% of total compensation for public-sector employees,2 with health insurance representing 10.9% of total compensation.2     

Embraceable you: how employers influence health plan enrollment.

Based on data from a 1999 national survey of 1,939 randomly selected employers, this paper examines the policies that affect the percentage of workers eligible for and enrolled in a firm's health plan. In 1994, 14 percent of employees worked for a firm offering cash-back payments, but fewer than 1 percent worked for a firm with income-related premiums or deductibles. The strongest determinants of eligibility rates are the waiting time for new employees before they are deemed eligible, and eligibility standards for part-time workers. The primary determinants of the take-up rate are lowest monthly employee contribution for single coverage, and the percentage of the workforce earning less than $20,000 per year.     

Health Insurance Disparities in Traditional and Contingent/Alternative Employment

Relative to whites, Hispanics and blacks are less likely to have employer health insurance coverage. We examine whether ethnicity or race affects employment in traditional jobs or in contingent and alternative work arrangements, and whether ethnicity or race affects insurance offer, eligibility, and/or enrollment, conditional on employment sector. Health insurance disparities relative to whites are more pronounced for Hispanics, primarily due to disparities in employment by firms that offer coverage. Eliminating racial/ethnic disparities in offers, eligibility, and takeup would increase insurance coverage rates of Hispanics in traditional jobs and of both Hispanics and blacks in contingent and alternative jobs. JEL classification: I10, J32, J70     

Small businesses' changing views on health reform

Our national sample of 750 randomly chosen firms with fewer than 50 employees reveals surprising findings about the traditional views of small business on health care reform. A substantial segment of the small business community is sympathetic to health care reform, including such controversial measures as mandating that all employers contribute to the coverage of their workers, limits on health care spending, and altering the tax treatment of employer contributions for health insurance. Without premium savings, fewer than half of small businesses support the concept of health insurance purchasing cooperatives. With premium savings, a majority support it.     

The Effect of Medicare Eligibility on Spousal Insurance Coverage

A majority of married couples in the USA take advantage of the fact that employers often provide health insurance coverage to spouses. When older spouses become eligible for Medicare, however, many of them can no longer provide their younger spouses with coverage. In this paper, we study how spousal eligibility for Medicare affects the health insurance and health care access of younger spouses. We find that spousal eligibility for Medicare results in younger spouses no longer having employers pay for their insurance and being less likely to have employer‐sponsored coverage. Instead, younger spouses switch to privately purchased coverage, which tends to be worse than what they had before their spouses became eligible for Medicare. We also find suggestive evidence that younger spouses are less likely to use health care services after their older spouses become eligible for Medicare. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who funds their health savings account and why?

Health savings account (HSA) enrollment has increased markedly in the last several years, but little is known about the factors affecting account funding decisions. We use a unique data set containing from a bank that exclusively services HSA funds linked to health status, benefit design, plan coverage, and enrollee characteristics from a very large national health insurance company to examine the factors associated with HSA contribution. We found that even small employer contributions had an apparently large effect on the decision to open an account: the account-opening rate was 50 % higher when employers contributed to the account. Conditional on opening an HSA, employee contributions were negatively associated with the amount of employer contribution, contributions rose with age, income, education, and health care need.     

Prospecting for customers in the small employer market: the experience of Arizona Health Care Group

The findings of this study provide an interesting profile of the small employer "prospects" for prepaid health plans, where a prospect is defined as an employer that responds to a mass mailing effort with a request for information and further contact. About 60% of these prospects already have insurance, with 40% having group insurance. Therefore, a substantial portion of prospects are seeking to replace their existing health benefit package with a different one. Of those who do not offer existing insurance, the most common reason is that it is "too expensive" or the employer is "not profitable." A very small proportion do not offer insurance because they do not qualify for it due to medical underwriting considerations. Prospects tend to be larger than non-prospects in terms of sales, but employ lower wage employees, on average. About half of prospects are in service industries, a proportion typical of small employers in general. Somewhat surprisingly, most prospects have been in operation for over five years. They are not new firms attempting to establish their benefit packages. This is consistent with the findings on gross sales, suggesting that some maturity is necessary before an employer considers offering group health insurance as a benefit. The prepaid plans in this study also appeared to target established employers for their marketing efforts. In responding to questions about their attitudes towards health insurance, over one-quarter of prospects indicated that they would be unwilling to offer insurance at rates so low that they would not normally apply to the coverages offered by prepaid plans. Thus, although they were "prospects" by the study's definition, they were unlikely to eventually contract with prepaid plans. Those prospects that had offered insurance previously, but had discontinued it, tended to cite premium increases as the reason. This suggests that prospects among small employers are likely to be very price sensitive, and that further prescreening of prospects by phone, during which premium levels are discussed, might be cost-effective in following up leads from mass mailings. The study data also suggest the importance of quick follow-up for mass mailing leads, as the drop-off in recall and interest appears to be substantial. About half of the prospects interviewed stated that they were unaware of AHCG, although they or someone in their business had returned a mailer requesting more information. In addition to their implications for marketing to small employers, the results of the study appear to have broader policy implications as well.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Employer-sponsored health insurance: pressing problems, incremental changes

Despite large premium increases, employers made only modest changes to health benefits in the past two years. By increasing copayments and deductibles and changing their pharmacy benefits, employers shifted costs to those who use services. Employers recognize these changes as short-term fixes, but most have not developed strategies for the future. Although interested in "defined-contribution" benefits, employers do not agree about what this entails and have no plans for moving to defined contributions in the near future. While dramatic changes in health benefits are unlikely in the short term, policymakers may want to watch for future erosions in health coverage.     

Have small-group health insurance purchasing alliances increased coverage?

We use data from 1993 and 1997 employer surveys to assess whether the three largest statewide small-group health insurance purchasing alliances--in California, Connecticut, and Florida--increased coverage in small business. They did not. Specifically, they did not reduce small-group market health insurance premiums, and they did not raise small-business health insurance offer rates. We explore and discuss some reasons why. Alliances do permit employers to offer much greater choice in the number and types of plans; employees are found to take advantage of this wider choice.     

An equitable way to pay for universal coverage.

This article describes a way to finance universal health care coverage that preserves much of the current financing system and replaces funds obtained from regressive sources with revenue from more progressive ones. New funding would be needed for 24 percent of health expenditures and would be raised through an increase in the federal personal income tax. Premiums are eliminated since their cost is the same to everyone regardless of income. Cost sharing and out-of-pocket spending for medically necessary services are also abolished. In a more equitably financed system, employers would pay a new payroll tax that raised the same amount of money they currently spend for employee health insurance premiums; this would require a payroll tax of about 7 percent. Revenue from an increase in federal personal income taxes would replace household out-of-pocket expenditures for medically necessary services and payments for insurance premiums. For the average, middle-income family, the tax increase would total $731 in 1998. In exchange for the tax increase, no American or American employer would need to buy health insurance or face out-of-pocket charges for any medically indicated health care.     

Did the Affordable Care Act's dependent coverage mandate increase premiums?

We investigate the impact of the Affordable Care Act's dependent coverage mandate on insurance premiums. The expansion of dependent coverage under the ACA allows young adults to remain on their parent's private health insurance plans until the age of 26. We find that the mandate has led to a 2.5–2.8 percent increase in premiums for health insurance plans that cover children, relative to single-coverage plans. We are able to conclude that employers did not pass on the entire premium increase to employees through higher required plan contributions.     

Tax Incidence and Net Benefits in the Market for Employment-Related Health Insurance: Sensitivity of Estimates to the Incidence of Employer Costs

The market for employment-related coverage contains public transfers through the tax system and private transfers across workers with predictably different risks. We examine both transfers across a wide range of employee characteristics, including age, race, ethnicity, family size, poverty level, and health risk. To resolve longstanding questions regarding the incidence of employer contributions, we simulate a range of alternative incidence scenarios in which (i) all employees offered coverage in a firm share equally in the employer's costs, (ii) burdens are narrowly targeted according to employee-specific health risks, and (iii) intermediate cases with burdens targeted by job characteristics, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and family size. Our results provide evidence regarding the distribution of tax subsidies and net benefits under a range of scenarios that we believe bound the true incidence of employer premium contributions.     

Managed Care and Employer Premiums

This paper used 1993–1997 data from medium and large size employers to examine the effects of market wide managed care penetration on the premiums paid for employer sponsored health insurance. Regressions were run for weighted average single coverage premiums and for premiums on conventional, HMO, and PPO coverage. Four findings emerged from the analysis. First, increased managed care penetration had no statistically significant effect on weighted average employer premiums. Second, higher HMO penetration resulted in lower HMO premiums but higher conventional and PPO premiums. Third, higher PPO penetration had no statistically meaningful effects across plan types. Finally, the results depended critically on whether firms offered self-insured plans. Higher levels of HMO penetration led to smaller increases in conventional and PPO premiums for firms with self-insured plans, but also yielded smaller premium reductions from HMOs relative to those with purchased coverage.